Volume 18 • Number 2 • FALL 2007
Message From The President
Judy Miller
Associate Dean for Special Academic Initiatives, Clark University
I begin my term as President of NEFDC at an exciting time for the
organization! Under the leadership of recent past Presidents Judith Kamber,
Tom Edwards, and Jeff Halprin, the organization has grown steadily.
Our fall and spring conferences have attracted increasing numbers of
enthusiastic attendees from an expanding geographic area, drawn in part by
our ability to book high-quality and high-profile keynote speakers. Our
experimental collaborations with other organizations and interest groups for
our two most recent spring conferences have been astoundingly successful.
The increasing size of our conferences has necessitated a series of changes
in conference venue, most recently a move of the fall conference to the DCU
Center in Worcester, Massachusetts. Our newsletter continues to grow, in
volume and in quality, under the recent guidance of our dedicated editors
Jeff Halprin, Tom Thibodeau, and Steve Berrien. In spite of, or perhaps
because of, all of this growth, our organization remains on sound financial
footing under the watchful eye of our conscientious treasurer Charlie
Kaminski. Clearly the word is spreading that NEFDC offers accessible,
affordable, and high-quality opportunities to connect with the region’s most
engaged and active faculty for the improvement of teaching and learning.
Our next opportunity for such connections, and our flagship event of the
year, is our upcoming fall conference on Friday, Nov. 9. Our keynote
speaker is George Kuh, the director of the Center for Postsecondary
Research at Indiana University that originates and administers NSSE, the
National Survey of Student Engagement. If you haven’t yet registered, take
a moment right now to do so—there is a registration form conveniently
located inside this newsletter! Our conference theme, engaged learning,
prompted an unprecedented number of proposal submissions, and the
contributed sessions show every indication of exceeding previous high
standards. The theme of engaged learning invites and challenges us to
engage with each other as we take a mini-retreat from our responsibilities,
just for one day, and contemplate how best to foster the success of our
students, both in and out of the classroom.
The work of the organization is done almost entirely by the highly
engaged volunteer members of the Board of Directors. Most Board members serve in multiple roles, as officers, editors, and conference organizers,
sometimes filling more than one role at the same time. Our single retiring
Board member, Judith Kamber (Northern Essex Community College), is no
Continued on page 3
From the Editors:
The theme of the upcoming NEFDC Spring Conference is: “Engaging
Learning: Fostering Student Success.”
Accordingly, two of the articles in this issue of the NEFDC Exchange
address that theme. The first article is an abstract from George Kuh that
outlines the direction of his keynote address. The second article
describes activities that engage students through service learning projects. The final two articles discuss two different methods of faculty
development: reciprocal mentoring at UMASS Amherst and the development and use of interactive TV at UCONN.
Other parts of the newsletter provide information about resources and
activities that promote professional development.
And of course the events, the newsletter, and the website sponsored by
NEFDC, as described throughout this issue, all exist purely to support
professional development for faculty and staff.
We hope you enjoy this issue, and we welcome your feedback and
future contributions. If you would like to submit an article for our Spring
newsletter please email a word document to tthibodeau@neit.edu by
March 1, 2008.
In This Issue...
NEFDC Fall 2007 Conference. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Helpful Suggestions for Teaching Interactive
Television Courses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Engaged Learning: The Foundation for Student Success . . . . . . . 2
Meet Our New Board Members. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Fall Conference Agenda. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Connecting With Others. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Learning Through Community Engagement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
www.NEFDC.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Reciprocal Mentoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
NEFDC Fall Conference Registration Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
NEFDC FALL 2007 CONFERENCE
“Engaged Learning: Fostering Student Success”
Featuring Dr. George Kuh, Indiana University
Friday, November 9, 2007
DCU Center
Worcester, Massachusetts
George D. Kuh is Chancellor’s Professor of Higher Education at Indiana University Bloomington where
he directs the Center for Postsecondary Research, home to the National Survey of Student Engagement
(NSSE) and related initiatives. A past president of the Association for the Study of Higher Education
(ASHE), Kuh has written extensively about student engagement, assessment, institutional improvement,
and college and university cultures and has consulted with more than 185 educational institutions and
agencies in the US and abroad. His scholarly contributions have been recognized with awards from the
American College Personnel Association, Association for Institutional Research, ASHE, Council of
Independent Colleges, National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, and the National Center
on Public Policy in Higher Education and Council for Adult and Experiential Learning. He holds honorary
degrees from Millikin University, Washington and Jefferson College, and Luther College, where he is a member of the Board of Regents. In
2001, he received Indiana University’s prestigious Tracy Sonneborn Award for a distinguished career of teaching and research.
Engaged Learning: The Foundation for Student Success
A Note from our Fall Conference Keynote Speaker
George Kuh
Indiana University
Javier is the first in his family to go to university. His
residence hall houses 600 other first-year students but no one
on his floor is in any of his classes, so he is pretty much on his
own when it comes to studying.
Unsure of her major, Sarah struggles with her writing,
which was a problem in high school. After three semesters of
university, only her composition course required a few short
papers and all her tests so far were multiple choice or truefalse. A looming concern is that two of her finals this term will
be essay exams.
Nicole left university after her first year to get married.
Now divorced with a child, she works 30 hours a week and is
taking two classes this term. Her university experience is
pretty much limited to finding a place to park near campus
and going to class.
Tens of thousands of undergraduates are like Javier, Sarah,
and Nicole. They must deal with one or more circumstances
that seriously challenge their ability to succeed in university.
Socioeconomic background, financial means, family encouragement and support, and – most important -- taking the right
kinds of courses in high school substantially influence
whether a person will earn a credential or degree. Because the
trajectory for academic success is established long before
students matriculate, many universities have less-than-stellar
graduation rates.
Yet once students start, how much they get out of their
studies and whether they persist are—to an appreciable
degree— a function of how much time and effort they devote
to productive activities. Toward these ends, some institutions
have fashioned policies and practices that boost the performance of all students.
2
NEFDC EXCHANGE • FALL 2007
My presentation will focus on the factors and conditions
that promise to engage students like Javier, Sarah and Nicole
at high levels in effective educational practices. I will describe
promising, “high impact” practices, drawing on data
from the National Survey of Student Engagement and
the Faculty Survey of Student Engagement, my studies
of strong performing universities, and my distillation of
the research on student success conducted for the U.S.
Department of Education. The focus will be on what faculty
members can do to engage students in productive learning
activities. For example, many students—especially those who
commute—spend a limited amount of time each week on
campus. The classroom is the only regular point of contact
they have with other students and with faculty and staff
members. This means that faculty members must be more
intentional about teaching institutional values and traditions
and informing students about campus events, procedures, and
deadlines such as registration. Faculty members also can use
cooperative learning activities to bring students together
to work together after class on meaningful tasks. This is
especially important because peers are very influential to
student learning and values development. This is why
high quality first-year seminars and learning communities
(where students take two or more courses together) can be
so powerful.
Finally, I will challenge participants to work collaboratively with the colleagues throughout the university to
muster the will to more consistently use these promising
policies and practices to increase the odds that more students
get ready, get in, and get through.
Message From The President Continued from page 1
exception. Since Judith and I superficially resemble
each other, and since we share a name, I have joked with
her that maybe no one will notice that the presidency
has changed hands—but her passion and style are inimitable, and we will miss her greatly! As we go to press,
we have received word of the resignation of long-time
Board member Steve Berrien. Steve has been a mainstay
of many conference and newsletter teams, and his will
be big shoes to fill. We welcome our new Board
members, Mei-Yau Shih (University of Massachusetts
Amherst), Michelle Barthelemy (Greenfield Community
College), and Donna Qualters (Suffolk University) and
we offer our congratulations to our re-elected Board
members, Tom Edwards (Thomas College), Keith Barker
(University of Connecticut Storrs), Jeff Halprin (Nichols
College), and Tom Thibodeau (New England Institute of
Technology). We thank them all, and also our continuing
Board members, for their willingness to contribute
“sweat equity” to this terrific organization. (I hasten to
point out that Board members feel amply rewarded
by the opportunity to work closely with such a diverse,
dedicated, and thoughtful group of colleagues.) The
titles and contact information of all the Board members
are in this newsletter and on the NEFDC web site
(www.nefdc.org), and we all welcome your comments,
questions, and suggestions.
Classroom teaching can be an individual, even an
isolated endeavor. But I think that, as educators,
engagement—with students, with colleagues, and with
issues in teaching and learning—is at the core of our
professional responsibility. To me, this organization is
fundamentally about engagement. It is a privilege for
me to play a role in carrying on NEFDC’s tradition
of engagement.
Fall Conference Agenda
Friday, November 9, 2007
DCU Center
Worcester, Massachusetts
8:30 - 9:00 Conference Registration
9:00 - 9:15 Welcome, Introductions
9:15 - 10:30 Keynote Presentation
George Kuh, Ph.D.
Chancellor’s Professor of Higher Education
Director, Center of Postsecondary Research
Indiana University
10:45 - 11:45 Session I: Concurrent Workshops & Teaching Tips
12:00 - 1:00 Lunch
1:15 - 2:15 Session II: Concurrent Workshops & Teaching Tips
2:30 - 3:30 Session III: Concurrent Workshops & Teaching Tips
Concurrent Workshops are interactive, 60-minute sessions that encourage participant involvement
through case studies, discussion groups, role-playing, etc.
Teaching Tips sessions are shorter, 25-minute topical presentations (2 per session).
Poster Sessions allow presenters to highlight a particular program or initiative throughout the day.
The NEFDC EXCHANGE
Tom Thibodeau, New England Institue of Technology, Warwick, RI, Editor
Jeanne Albert, Castleton State College, Castleton, VT, Editor
The NEFDC EXCHANGE is published in the Fall and Spring of each academic year. Designed to inform the membership of the
activities of the organization and the ideas of members, it depends upon member submissions. Submissions may be sent to either editor
at tthibodeau@neit.edu or jeanne.albert@castleton.edu. Materials in the newsletter are copyrighted by NEFDC, except as noted, and may
be copied by members only for their use.
NEFDC EXCHANGE • FALL 2007
3
Learning Through Community Engagement
Kevin R. Kearney
Associate Professor of Biochemistry and Director of Service-Learning
Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, Worcester, MA
In this article, I will describe a Service-Learning (SL)
course that I have taught for seven years and some of the
educational outcomes of this course. Though the reference
point of the present article will be this course, I will highlight
course components and educational outcomes that should be
broadly applicable. For those unfamiliar with SL, this will
provide some ideas about how to incorporate this pedagogy
in courses they teach. For current SL practitioners, it will
provide some ideas about potential learning outcomes of SL
and how to assess them.
For the purposes of this article, I will define ServiceLearning as a learner-centered pedagogy, as part of which
students (a) engage in service in the community and (b) learn
by reflecting on it. The process must be reciprocal: the students must benefit by learning from the service, and those
served must benefit from needed services.
Service-Learning Course
I will present the course I teach by describing (1) some
general information about the course and the students, (2) the
learning goals of the course, (3) assessment methods, and (4)
teaching and learning activities.
(1) General Information
This course is a required 1-credit course for first-year
pharmacy students. Approximately 2/3 of the students in this
program have at least a bachelor’s degree, and the average
age of the entering students is usually 27-28 years. Students
in the course are required to attend a 1-hour weekly seminar,
The assessment
of learning is
multifaceted, and
associated with
various service-site
or classroom
activities.
4
NEFDC EXCHANGE • FALL 2007
and to do 2 hours of community service for 10 weeks. The
class-size is usually 35-40 at our Worcester campus, and
20-25 at our Manchester, NH, campus.
(2) Learning Goals
Our college’s articulated goal is to educate communityoriented healthcare professionals (particularly pharmacists)
for the 21st century. Following from this, it is clear that
courses such as pharmacology must be part of our curriculum.
However, pharmacists must also understand the complexities
of their patients’ lives and the communities in which they
provide pharmaceutical care. This is why we have the servicelearning course in our curriculum.
The objectives of this course include both service and
learning. There is one broadly stated service objective: The
students must provide 20 hours of service over a 10-week
period, and the service must meet the established needs of the
people and organizations served.
The learning objectives for the course were selected
from objectives articulated by the Accreditation Council for
Pharmaceutical Education. These include the following:
• Develop or enhance communication skills.
• Become familiar with the most critical needs of those
served, with a special focus on culturally diverse and underserved populations.
• Become familiar with the resources in the community
(individuals, organizations, etc.) that are available to meet the
needs of various populations, especially the underserved.
• Develop critical-thinking skills.
(3) Assessment
The assessment of service is straightforward. Near the
end of the semester, we send a brief evaluation form to each
student’s supervisor at the service site, asking if the student
visited the site regularly, and provided at least 2 hours of
service work per week for at least 10 weeks. The supervisor
is asked to answer affirmatively or negatively, and to comment on any problems, or to commend outstanding service.
The assessment of learning is multifaceted, and associated
with various service-site or classroom activities. In the evaluation form sent to on-site supervisors, they are asked, “From
your observations, did this student learn through providing
service?” They are also asked to evaluate the students’ oral
communication skills (Excellent, Above-average, Good, Fair,
Needs improvement). Though not very detailed, we consider
this a good general indicator of skills. To assess the students’
skills communicating with groups, all are required to give a
presentation during the last weeks of the course to the entire
class about their service and learning accomplishments, and
their fellow students and the instructor complete a brief
evaluation of their presentations, assessing both content and
delivery.
The assessment of the students’ familiarity with the lifeissues of those they served is done by evaluating their weekly
entries in a journal, the content of their oral presentations
(lessons learned) and their responses to a written survey on
the last day of class. (Queries: Describe what you learned
from the most educational part of this course. Write about
something you learned from your classmates’ presentations
in the second half of the semester.)
The assessment of the students’ knowledge about
resources in the community is based on their journal
entries, the information they provided in their oral presentations and a query in the written survey at the end of
the course: Describe the services provided by two organizations where your classmates did SL work.
Finally, the assessment of the students’ critical-thinking
skills is based on the quality of their journal entries (beyond
simple reporting of events, to analyses of the situations they
encountered and the broader social issues they highlight) and
the depth of their oral presentations.
(4) Teaching/Learning Activities
Students must provide 20 hours of service over a 10-week
period. We have approximately 30 community organizations
in Worcester, and 8 in Manchester, where the students can do
their community-based work. We have selected these based
on their needs, our students’ abilities and our learning goals
(developing communication skills, learning about diverse
populations, etc.). They include public schools, largely those
educating underserved populations, where our students serve
as tutors and mentors; organizations providing recreational
and educational opportunities to children and youths outside
the classroom; nursing homes and agencies serving seniors;
homeless shelters; free medical clinics and an agency serving
those with AIDS and their families and friends; organizations
serving people with disabilities; and an agency serving adult
speakers of languages other than English. At the beginning
of the semester, each student and an on-site supervisor complete and sign a Service-Learning Agreement, enumerating
their planned service activities and goals.
Students must participate in a one-hour weekly seminar.
Among the topics discussed in the seminar are: reflection on
service as a tool for significant learning; assessing the quality
of service; communication skills; cultural diversity and competency; and ethics in a diverse society. During the last four
weeks of the semester, students give their oral presentations
about their service work and associated learning.
For this course, students purchase a journal that includes
written guidelines for making entries, and spaces for weekly
entries. In their entries, students are instructed to report their
observations, activities, subjective reactions to their experiences, lessons learned from reflection on their work and
societal issues that they encounter, and a weekly plan for
action the following week based on their experiences to date.
Educational Outcomes
So what are the educational outcomes of this course?
This has been the central question behind research I have
carried out over several years. In a 2004 publication, I
described students’ self-evaluations of their learning.
(Kearney KR, Amer. J. Pharm. Ed. 68, Article 29, 1-13)
Though such research points to possible learning, it is subjective. In an attempt to move toward more objective assessment, more recently I have asked students, in the survey on
the last day of class (mentioned above), to describe what they
have learned from the course.
The area of learning that was most frequently mentioned
by students was communication (41% of the respondents).
This was reassuring, as it was one of the key educational
objectives of the course. Several respondents pointed to the
importance of listening skills, which had been a topic of
discussion and practice during one of the seminars. Many
reported improving their communication skills, referring to
both one-on-one communication and giving presentations to a
group. While no objective measurement of communication
skills was done at the beginning or conclusion of the course, it
is clear that the students were very aware of their importance,
knew some of the elements of effective communication (e.g.,
active listening, speaking at a level appropriate to the listener),
and were consciously working to improve their skills.
The evaluation forms completed by the students’ site
supervisors provide some information about the students’ oral
communication skills. The supervisors rated 76% of the
students’ skills as Excellent or Above-Average, and 19% as
Good. Five percent of the students were rated as “Fair” or
“Needs Improvement;” in all cases the supervisor indicated
poor attendance or poor attitude as a reason for the low rating.
Especially considering the fact that approximately 30% of the
students speak a language other than English as their
first language, these results suggest that the students are
reasonably proficient in oral English. Though this does
not necessarily mean that the students’ communication skills
improved as a result of the course, they positively complement the students’ self-evaluations.
Within the area of communication, a number of students
specifically mentioned learning from experience about the
importance and methods of explaining complex material in
ways that are effective for relatively unskilled learners. One
student reported learning “how to break down large topics
into lay people’s terms.” Another student, who had tutored
elementary school students, wrote that he had learned how
“to get [the students] to understand subjects and ideas that [he
had] mastered but [that the children had] minimal experience
with.” The awareness and skills these students developed
will be critically important when they are later working as
pharmacists.
Many respondents reported increased awareness of the
‘real-world’ needs of people in the community (12%), or of the
wide variety of organizations and programs whose purpose is to
meet those needs (16%). Though the percentages are low, in
light of the fact that the respondents were asked to identify only
their most significant learning – not all learning – I consider
these results positive indicators. Specific needs noted by the
respondents included: academic and social services support for
at-risk children, aging-related issues (e.g., loss of independence,
loneliness, loss of hearing), healthcare access (especially for the
under- and unemployed), access to work and education for
those who do not speak and understand English well, etc. They
also specifically mentioned many of the agencies where they or
their classmates were doing SL work, and/or organizations
whose representatives had spoken to the SL seminars (e.g., a
NEFDC EXCHANGE • FALL 2007
5
local AIDS-care organization, free medical clinics, youthserving organizations, homeless shelters). These responses indicate an awareness of both the needs of, and the available
resources in, the community.
A relatively recent (2004) addition to the learning objectives of the Service Learning course was increased awareness
of cultural diversity, and cultural competence in care. Twentythree percent (23%) of the respondents reported learning about
cultural diversity and developing a greater cultural competence. The learning was both from the seminar part of the
course (for which the students were required to read and report
on information available at a website focused on cultural diversity in healthcare) and from the service experiences. One student, who was tutoring an adult learner of English, wrote that
her experience “exposed [her] to another culture and someone
that [she] might come across in a pharmacy setting.” A student
who had worked with a very diverse population at a food and
clothing distribution center reported that she had learned how
“understanding a person’s personal and cultural background is
one of the keys to enhance [the] relationship” with that person.
The combination of classroom treatment of this subject, and
experiencing the issues in practice, seems to have resulted in
positive learning experiences.
As noted above, at the end of the course, the students’ onsite supervisors were asked if, from their observations, the
students learned through providing service. The response
choices were: (a) a lot, (b) some, (c) a little, (d) nothing, (e)
don’t know. Of the respondents, 94% indicated that their students had learned much (68%) or some (26%). Most of those
who responded otherwise noted poor attendance or poor attitude issues with the students involved. Though the question
posed to the supervisors was rather general, the responses indicate a quite positive assessment of the students’ learning, in
terms of what the supervisors would like the students to learn.
Conclusion
What I have shown above is the basic design of a course
that employs service-learning (learning objectives, assessment
methods and teaching and learning activities), and how such a
course can lead students to achieve significant learning through
engagement in the community. Though I have described a
course for pharmacy students to illustrate course design and the
associated educational outcomes, I submit that this is equally
applicable in other disciplines and in other settings.
Engagement in service activities in a local community,
coupled with appropriate reflective activities, can lead students
to significant learning relevant to many disciplines. One can
imagine the relevance of the learning I have noted above in the
fields of communication, sociology, psychology, and other
healthcare professions. By selecting different service work,
one could imagine relevant learning in environmental science,
civil engineering, criminal justice, etc. The service-learning
literature is full of examples in a wide variety of disciplines.
Service-learning is not an appropriate pedagogy in every
course, but if we think of it as one of the instructional methods
in our ‘tool box,’ we can employ it as needed. We can do so
with the confidence that it has the ability to lead our students to
significant learning.
Reciprocal Mentoring
Mathew L. Ouellett, Director
Center for Teaching, University of Massachusetts Amherst
Susan E. McKenna, Director of the Office of Research Literacy,
Commonwealth College, University of Massachusetts Amherst
Technological advances in higher education in recent
years have provided wonderful new avenues for enhancing
teaching and learning. These advances range from coursebased learning management systems to the increasingly
available online data and reference sets in libraries. Nearly
ubiquitous web access for most students allows them to call
up images, videos, pod casts, news reports and websites
dedicated to a myriad of issues. Indeed, as more and more
students access and make use of materials via the internet,
librarians, faculty and instructional staff across the disciplines see a concomitant rise in their need to help students
better critique the day-to-day use of such resources.
Educational developers are now regularly confronted
with the question of how to we help prepare instructors to
aid students in building the skills needed to distinguish
between and make appropriate use of the array of resource
materials now available to them related to their scholarly
6
NEFDC EXCHANGE • FALL 2007
interests. The reality is that today many of our students are
already more comfortable with the on-line environment
than will ever be many of their instructors. Tom McBride’s
(2007) annual “Beloit College Mindset List” helps us illuminate this disparity in how we seek and use information
by pointing out that for the entering class of 2007 (students
who will graduate in 2011, if all goes well):
• Thanks to MySpace and Facebook, autobiography can
happen in real time.
• Most phone calls have never been private.
• They get much more information from Jon Stewart
and Stephen Colbert than from the newspaper.
• They're always texting 1 n other.
• Avatars have nothing to do with Hindu deities.
Interest in research literacy has provided a unique
opportunity for collaboration between the Center for
Teaching (CFT) and the Office of Research Literacy,
located at Commonwealth College, the Honors College at
the University of Massachusetts Amherst (UMA). We have
joined together in a new collaboration across academic
departments and functions in support of improved methods
of faculty development – with a specific focus on helping
instructors be better prepared to teach students research
literacy. In this article we describe how our shared interests
in faculty and instructional development merged in support
of our new program to create an opportunity for collegial
peer-mentoring. We describe our particular interest in and
attention to helping instructors articulate the nuances of
seeking information within their disciplinary contexts and
how to teach students these methods and conventions in the
ever changing context of technological advances.
Communities of Learning
The Center for Teaching (CFT) at UMA grew out of a
desire among faculty and administrators to provide support
for teaching at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. It
evolved under the guidance of the Office of the Provost
from the Lilly Teaching Fellows Program first hosted on
campus in 1986, and was formally established in 1989. We
report to the Provost’s Office and are advised by the
Faculty Senate Council on Teaching, Learning, and
Instructional Technology.
The purpose of the CFT is to offer opportunities for
professional development in teaching. Our services are
wide-ranging: consultations with individual faculty and
departments; annual award programs; teaching assistant
(TA) training and support; yearly campus-wide events;
resource development and distribution; and research and
funded grants. In delivering these services to a diverse client group including faculty, TAs, departments, schools,
colleges, and academic administration, we are guided by
five primary goals:
• To provide opportunities for professional development
in teaching to faculty members and TAs to enable them to
promote student learning.
• To develop a variety of ways to share the talent, energy, perspectives and expertise of the instructors at this
University
• To increase communication about teaching and student
learning both within and between departments and colleges.
• To link the University and it’s instructors with programs and experts on teaching and learning at other
campuses and organizations throughout the state, region,
and nation.
• To offer recognition and reward for excellence in
teaching.
Conventional approaches to mentoring in the past have
been steeped in notions of hierarchical and unidirectional
relationships and, often, the most successful of such relationships tended to be relatively private ones, occurring on
a one-to-one basis (de Janasz & Sullivan, 2003). Working
from a very different set of values, the CFT has for over the
past twenty years, successfully guided faculty communities
of learning, addressing issues such as junior faculty development, diversity, teaching with technology, and assessment. In all of these efforts, CFT efforts have prioritized
the development of collegiality, shared leadership, open
dialogue, and the deliberate welcoming of diverse perspectives. In our ongoing assessment efforts, for example, List
(2003, 1997) found that over time participants report that
their experiences with the Lilly Program had significant
positive effects on teaching skills and attitudes, collegiality,
research and service.
When our colleagues in Commonwealth College decided to embark on the creation of a faculty learning community focused on research literacy, they came to the CFT for
advice, resource materials and organization templates. We
were glad to respond positively and what emerged from our
collaboration was a unique mutual mentoring experience.
While each office has its own mandate and priorities,
we share a commitment to creating the highest quality
educational development opportunities for colleagues
across the institution. The Research Literacy Fellows program is an example of how we as colleagues have come
together to work collaboratively and as peer mentors to
blend proven educational development strategies to address
an innovative, fast changing topic.
Research Literacy Fellows
The Office of Research Literacy, located at Commonwealth
College, the Honors College at the University of Massachusetts
Amherst, works in partnership with faculty to improve undergraduate research skills and to provide a collaborative bridge
to campus-wide resources. Research Literacy promotes faculty development through the Research Literacy Fellows and
through providing concrete resources for faculty to use in their
teaching as well as practical tools for students to use in their
coursework. Initially conceived as a preventative response to
concerns about plagiarism, Research Literacy has evolved into
a multi-pronged approach that pulls together these elements
– academic integrity, information technology, cross-disciplinary analysis, and diversity and social justice – with specialization in how research can be employed in community- and
creative-based courses. That multi-pronged approach is
expressed through the reciprocal mentoring model that structures the Research Literacy Fellows.
Continued on page 8
Our hands-on resources include research tools with “how-tos” for evaluating sources, generating
research questions, and writing research logs and literature reviews. Our Library Database Research
Guide organizes the University of Massachusetts academic databases into a format with discipline
specificity that can be easily used by undergraduates. Our series of Resources for Researchers also
include assignment templates for using the Library Research Guide and samples of student work.
NEFDC EXCHANGE • FALL 2007
7
Funded in 2005-06 by the Graduate School Ethics
Council, and in 2006-07 and -08 by Commonwealth
College, the Fellows program was conceived as an opportunity to develop mentoring relationships between faculty
and graduate instructors who would work together on
incorporating the conceptual and practical frameworks of
Research Literacy into their teaching. Early on in the grant
application process we, the authors of this article, met regularly to review the successful attributes of the CFT’s long
standing faculty and graduate student learning communities. These communities include: the Lilly, Teaching and
Learning in the Diverse Classroom and TEACHnology
Fellows programs, as well as the Grants for Professional
Development in Teaching, part of the Periodic Multi-Year
Review (PMYR) which is our campus wide review process
for tenured faculty (Sorcinelli, et al, 2007). Because all
educators are impacted by the changing terms of research
ethics and information technologies, we began with the
belief that through reciprocal mentoring fellows would
learn from one another with the by-product of more opportunities for professional socialization, especially for junior
faculty and graduate student instructors. Patterning the
Research Literary Fellows program on prior efforts developed by the CFT, we were guided by the shared belief that
a community of practice model, in this case focused by
reciprocal mentoring, redistributes the responsibility for
learning, advances collaborations across the disciplines and
fosters meaningful and sustained intra-institutional dialogues across campus departments, offices, and resources.
The selection process for the ten 2005-06 fellows was
extremely important and we actively sought to create an
exciting and diverse group that included tenured and contract faculty as well as graduate instructors with a range of
cultural backgrounds, teaching experiences, and interdisciplinary research interests that would generate valuable
juxtapositions. For instance, one fellow, who was completing a Master’s degree in using information technology in
the classroom, brought a colloquial ease to our discussions
about crossing the “tech barrier.” That everyday confidence
was confidence building for another individual who with
over thirty years University teaching experience was
extremely insecure about using technology pre-fellows: “I
am so thrilled that I lost my fear of the computer, that I lost
my fear of searches.” Several fellows with strong interdisciplinary training in critical cultural studies had particular
viewpoints about the meta-question of how to make connections between theory and practice, while other fellows
spoke about the hands-on application of academic research
through including community service learning components
in their teaching. Reciprocal mentoring effectively leveled
the playing field; although senior faculty had years of
teaching and research experience, other participants brought
divergent competencies and perspectives to our meetings.
The programming for the Fellows’ year – a one-day
Please take a look at the UMASS online resources at:
http://www.comcol.umass.edu/academics/researchliteracy/
8
NEFDC EXCHANGE • FALL 2007
retreat and eight monthly meetings – generated an additional level of reciprocity between the Fellows community
and campus resources. While several meetings focused on
fellow-to-fellow conversations about teaching challenges
and successes, we also organized meetings as participatory
workshops that featured guest contributors. We built upon
our already established alliances with campus resources to
include discussions about promoting academic integrity
with University ombudsperson, Catherine Porter, using
technology to improve teacher-student interactions with
Associate Director for User Services at the W.E.B. Du Bois
Library, Anne C. Moore, and utilizing research as a tool for
incorporating cultural diversity into curricula with
Information Literacy Librarian, Isabel Espinal. These participatory workshops included demonstrations of resources
such as academic databases as well as discussions of issues
involved in teaching research skills. Incorporating both
practical and theoretical content encouraged interactions
across disciplines while simultaneously demystifying campus resources such as library subject specialists and workshops for faculty offered by the Office of Information
Technology. These meetings expanded upon the dynamics
that transpired fellow-to-fellow to include reciprocity
across campus as participants from both sides reported
positively upon the opportunity for networking and feedback with future collaborations envisioned.
As we move into 2007-08, the third year of the Research
Literacy Fellows, the model of reciprocal mentoring has
broadened at several levels. First off, at the institutional
level, the underlying philosophy of an honors college to
serve as a testing ground for innovative pedagogical
Example of reciprocal mentoring from fellows to
administration to students that disrupts traditional
compartmentalization of University: Another dimension of reciprocal mentoring can be found through the
inclusion of administration and professional staff in
the fellows program. One administrator who works in
program development for recruitment and retention of
ALANA students described how the fellows experience impacted her work with students. Such dissemination examples suggest that the reciprocal mentoring
structure of the Fellows program maximizes the institutional potential of Research Literacy through the
sharing of practical resources and tools that move
across the traditional University hierarchy for teaching and learning.
dissemination is upheld by the College’s support of the
Research Literacy Fellows.i The Fellows’ program is now
open to faculty members from across the campus and our
total number of participants to date is thirty-four. Moreover,
several fellows have been members of the University professional staff and administration: the 2007-08 group
includes a reference librarian and our University
Ombudsperson intends to participate in the future; we have
also included an undergraduate fellow whose contributions
have been characterized as “invaluable.” The expansion of
the previous Commonwealth College-affiliated selection
pool has greatly added to reciprocal mentoring across disciplines and departments and has been a key aspect of the
potential for a reconceptualization of the traditional hierarchy of institutional responsibility for learning at the intrainstitutional level.
For example, a central focus of the Fellows’ year is the
emphasis on using research assignments as vehicles for
incorporating questions about diversity and social justice
into course materials. Last year, fellows from three different departments – Legal Studies, Communication, and
Comparative Literature – discovered they were all using the
timely question of immigration as a central teaching focus.
That cross-disciplinary intersection illustrated the sharing
of teaching resources through conversations, which, as one
participant commented, “linked me to other departments
for information.” The variegated approaches that individual
fellows brought to diversity education were particularly
significant components of the reciprocal mentoring experience as interdisciplinary debates and cross-national perspectives moved into practical suggestions. Such topics as
the interrelations of stereotyping and plagiarism were a
mutually beneficial conversation for both the fellows and
the Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Plagiarism whose
members presented at a fellows seminar on academic integrity. ii A discussion of the politics of making diversity more
visible on the library home page offered concrete suggestions that may prove to be fruitful for future library initiatives. These instances of reciprocal mentoring – across
faculty-to-faculty and department-to-department as well as
office-to-office and resource-to-resource – point to the multiple dimensions of intra-institutional reciprocity occur
through the Research Literacy Fellows initiative.
Outcomes
In before and after assessments, participants reported
significant improvement in their own skill at evaluating
sources and navigating academic databases as well as in
their understanding of plagiarism and copyright. Learning
through teaching reflects a basic mandate of critical pedagogy: that the presuppositions of one’s own research and
writing become more explicit when put into practice in the
classroom. Participants who were PhD candidates were
particularly affirming about their increased skill at writing
literature reviews as a result of the fellows’ year. Moreover,
fellows stated that their confidence in teaching research
methods and ethics appreciably increased as almost 100%
reported that they now require students to use online
Research Literacy resources. That confidence was reflected
in multiple observations about how student research skills
had improved by the end of the fellows’ year. Of note in
pre- and post-assessment was the report of increased incorporation of perspectives on diversity and social justice into
classroom materials. That change reflected a particular
goal of the fellows program: to meet the growing need for
critical resources and practical tools that could be utilized
to diversify course readings and research assignments.
Our preliminary assessment also indicated that faculty
usage of such campus resources as the library subject
specialists and OIT resources increased considerably.
Additionally, the fellows program raised awareness of
resources such as the new Library Learning Commons and
the Office of Community Service Learning. Last, and in
continuity with the initial motivation for a model of reciprocal mentoring, fellow-to-fellow collaborative interactions
were affirmed through statements about the importance of
the “chance to feel part of the ComCol community” as
“peer discussion and learning together” made the fellows’
year “a very rewarding experience and an important one for
community-building.”
Example of intra- and inter-institutional dissemination: A really good example of reciprocal mentoring
in the Fellows program that circulated across both
intra- and inter-institutional levels can be found in the
dissemination of one of the key skills suggested by
Research Literacy. The research log, first suggested
by reference librarian Isabel Espinal, is a record of the
research process that emphasizes source evaluation
and citation. Already in wide usage at Commonwealth
College through the innovative Dean’s Book Course,
fellows have remarked upon the usage of the log in
several additional contexts. A fellow in the 2006-07
cohort, an assistant director of the University Writing
Program, told us they are considering using the
research logs in their teacher training, which will
potentially impact all incoming students taking a first
year writing course. Other fellows have taken this
resource for undergraduates into their teaching of
graduate students. Moreover, because the fellows are
open to part-time faculty and graduate instructors who
regularly teach in other departments and colleges, we
hear anecdotally that the research log is in the process
of being disseminated across campus and beyond.
NEFDC EXCHANGE • FALL 2007
9
Conclusion
As we have indicated above, early assessment of the Research
Literacy Fellows Program indicates that this is a promising model for
preparing instructors across the disciplines to teach better and to
know better how to coach undergraduate and graduate students, as
well as peers, in the central tenants of research literacy. We are particularly excited about having found another successful strategy to
manifest our institution’s commitment to inclusive teaching and
learning. In addressing and discarding traditional models of mentoring and academic program administration, we have also found a new
opportunity to embrace a collegial and mutually beneficial approach
to the development of institution wide instructional and faculty
development programming on our campus.
Bibliography
de Janasz, S., & Sullivan, S. (2004). Multiple mentoring in academe:
Developing the professorial network. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64,
263-283.
List, K. (1997). A Continuing Conversation on Teaching: The Lily
Teaching Program at UMass 1985-96. In D. Dezure (Ed.) To Improve the
Academy, 16, 201-224. Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press.
List, K. (2003). The “Conversation” Continues: UMass Lilly Teaching
Fellows Program Builds on First Ten Years. Journal of Faculty Development,
19, (2), 57-64. Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press.
McBride, T. (2007). The Beloit College Mindset List. Downloaded
September 18, 2007 from http://ctl.stanford.edu/Tomprof/postings/809.html.
Sorcinelli, M. D., Shih, M., Ouellett, M. L., & Stewart, M. (2007). How
post-tenure review can support the teaching development of senior faculty. In
D. Robertson (Ed.), To Improve the Academy. (25), pp. 280-297. Bolton, MA:
Anker.
i Commonwealth College is in a unique position for dissemination because we maintain an interdisciplinary make-up in our pool of instructors, course
offerings, and student populations, and have non-traditional interdepartmental relationships, which include honors courses and honors faculty liaisons in all
departments campus-wide. Moreover, the College’s educational opportunities for faculty, graduate instructors, and part-time lecturers and our alliances and
collaborations with campus resources provide established mechanisms for dissemination.
iiThe Research Literacy Fellowship programming expanded in 2006-07 to include two seminars a year that are open to the wider campus teaching community. Each seminar had approximately forty attendees.
Helpful Suggestions for Teaching Interactive
Television Courses
Laura Donorfio
Assistant Professor of Human Development and Family Studies
University of Connecticut, Waterbury
Catherine Healy, Instructional Designer
University of Connecticut, Storrs
The Team:
Keith Barker, Director, Institute for Teaching and Learning
Dan Mercier, Assistant Director, Institute for Teaching and Learning
Steven Fletcher, Manager of Interactive Television & Video Conferencing
Distance education has rapidly evolved and grown since it first began
in the United States in 1883 with courses delivered by mail. And it is only
expected to “boom” with the recent decision by the U.S. Congress to
relax the “Fifty-fifty” rule that has required accredited colleges and universities to limit the number of off-campus students enrolled in distance
education programs to under fifty percent. The University of Connecticut
(UConn) has also rapidly evolved and grown in this area, spending considerable resources building the pedagogical and technological infrastructures for delivering one of the newest and fastest growing instructional
media in distance education, two-way interactive television (iTV). This
medium is distinctly different from earlier efforts because of its “real
time” interactive capacity between two or more sites.
Our team first began its venture back in 2005, with the overall goal of
being able to increase the number of students taking introductory courses
10
NEFDC EXCHANGE • FALL 2007
with core faculty members. As is the case with many institutions, instructional resources are spread thin among regional campuses, limiting the
courses that could be taught in any given semester. When the decision
was made to go ahead and convert a traditional course into an iTV course,
many unexpected intricacies and challenges surfaced along the way. The
following will provide some helpful suggestions when developing and
teaching an iTV course.
Initial steps involved gaining support from all the necessary levels of
UConn to teach a course in this manner (the department with which the
course was offered, the Vice Provost’s office, UConn’s Institute for
Teaching and Learning (ITL), and each of the campuses involved) and
creating a core team to prepare and launch the course. The core team was
comprised of the course professor as the content expert (first author), an
instructional designer for pedagogical support and re-design (second
author), and an iTV technology expert. As our team worked to re-design
a single site adult development and aging course into a three site adult
development and aging course, we realized that several elements were
integral in making the course a success. The most important elements
were: pedagogical considerations, most effective course platform, most
effective use of technology, effective training for all those involved, and
student comfort and background with iTV. In addition to addressing each
of these elements, Table 1 provides a list of general dos and don’ts to keep
in mind when designing and teaching an iTV course for the first time.
Pedagogical Considerations: Our main pedagogical focus was to
ensure the objectives, assessments, and activities all aligned and were
appropriate for the method of delivery. Many of the in-class activities had
to be adjusted to be effective across three sites. For example, during
lectures in the single-site version of the class, the professor would often
write on the white board to emphasize teaching points. In the iTV environment, writing on a white board is very difficult to read at the remote
sites due to the glare. The professor had to ensure the visual component
of the lecture was included in her PowerPoint presentation instead of
spontaneously writing on the board. Some adjustments required moving
activities from in-class to an out-of-class format. An online course management tool was added to the course to facilitate out-of-class activities,
such as asynchronous course discussions. This had the added benefit of
helping to create a sense of community. In addition, the online course
management tool afforded students easy access to class materials such as
handouts, assignments, and supplemental materials.
Course Platform: Many variables went into consideration when
deciding what the most effective course platform would be for teaching
an introductory course on adulthood and aging. Both authors felt face-toface contact was integral not only for effective teaching, but also in building a better relationship between the subject matter and the students.
Because three of the campuses are within 45 to 60 minutes of each other,
the instructor was willing to build a rotating schedule, meeting with each
campus at least three times during a 14 week semester. Weekly
PowerPoint handouts were provided, summarizing the class lectures so
the students could more easily follow from the remote sites. One teaching assistant was handpicked and assigned to each site, each having had
the course before so they were comfortable with the instructor, the course
content, and primarily, to operate the equipment and manage the class
when the instructor was not there. Lastly, as shared above, an on-line
course management tool was implemented for weekly discussion assignments, so students could read and react to other students at other sites.
Technology: The technology used to deliver the iTV course consisted of an H.323 videoconference system located on the main campus.
Because there were more than two sites, a bridge or multipoint control
unit needed to be used. Each site had a teaching station in the front of the
class with a control panel, document camera, VCR, DVD player, computer, and Internet access. Each class also had a large white projection
screen in front (middle) of the class, plasma screens in the front (sides)
and back and microphones strategically mounted in the ceiling. Based on
student feedback, two significant adjustments were made during the
semester to improve the delivery of the course to all sites. The first
adjustment involved muting the remote sites until they were addressed or
had questions or comments. Because the system is voice activated, any
remote conversation, background noise, or even laughter would overpower the instructor, causing her site to become mute. The second
adjustment involved changing the way the equipment could send and
display instructor, class, and content images. Initially, only one image
could be sent and displayed to the remote sites at any given time, which
meant the instructor could not be displayed when content (e.g.,
PowerPoint, Internet, document camera) was displayed. Consequently,
the teaching assistants had to manage how long the content was displayed
versus the instructor and this required a switch and focus with every
instructor/content switch. Not only did the students feel this took away
from the class flow, but they also wanted to see the instructor at all times.
To help solve this complaint, equipment and technical changes were
made so two images, the instructor and content, could be sent and displayed to the remote sites at the same time.
Training: Effective training was an important factor in the success of
the iTV course. Everyone involved with course delivery was trained on
the operation of the equipment. This included the professor, the three
teaching assistants, and the students. Training consisted of one-on-one
sessions to acclimate the users to the capabilities of the iTV system and
correct operation of the equipment. Training included procedural information on camera focus and zoom, microphone operation, source switching, and classroom management tips. This was followed by practice
sessions to reach proficiency. In addition, several mock teaching sessions
were conducted to enable the professor to adjust her teaching style and
techniques to the unique requirements of distance teaching. With respect
to the students, each student was provided with a Distance Learning
Handbook that addressed common concerns and offered tips on succeeding in an iTV course. The handbook also included information on successfully using the online course management tool associated with the
course. This was followed by in-class demonstrations to reinforce student procedures.
Student Comfort and iTV Background: Many challenges emerged
while teaching the course. An unexpected challenge involved creating a
comfort with the technology and the equipment in the room. This was
much more difficult to achieve than imagined. Not only did we need to
focus on the human elements but the technological elements as well.
Another challenge centered on building a trust with the technology,
especially the on-line management tool. For many of the students, it was
not only the first time they took an iTV course but it was the first time
they had to use an on-line management tool. Another challenge involved
student’s comfort asking questions and participating when the instructor
was not at their site. To remedy this, the instructor decided to have the
teaching assistants facilitate individual discussion sessions at each of
their respective sites before discussing as a group. Fortunately, addressing the challenges throughout the term by administering on-line surveys
proved to work very well overall, as evidence by student feedback and
evaluation scores.
In summary, while developing and teaching a distance education
course does take more time and require more resources at the onset, it can
be a tremendous resource if it matches the needs of the course content,
the instructor, and the students. It offers many benefits such as reaching
more students across campuses, providing a class that no faculty member
was available to teach, being cost effective in the long run, and providing
a competitive edge in attracting more students. With the growth of distance education and technology, and in our never-ending quest to meet
the growing needs of our students, distance education is a necessary
option for most educational programs.
References:
Donorfio, L.K.M. & Healy, C. (in press). Teaching an interactive
television course in adulthood and aging: Making it happen. Educational
Gerontology.
Gerontology News (2006). The Gerontological Society of America,
Washington, D.C. (April, p.7).
Continued on page 12
NEFDC EXCHANGE • FALL 2007
11
Table 1. Interactive Television Course Design Dos and Don'ts*
Dos
Pedagogy
• Make sure subject material lends itself to Distance Learning (DL)
“iTV”—sensitivity of subject, intro class needing maximum “face time”
• Construct course with the help of the instructional design team (creating ITV friendly objectives)
• Give students a PowerPoint style handout covering main points of
lecture so they have something to follow where you are more quickly
and to write notes on
• Realize more prep time is needed
• Realize teaching takes more time in this format--build in at least one
extra week for catch-up
• Bring “real experiences” to the course (not just simulation)
• Try to create a “virtual classroom”
Technology
Pedagogy
• Have the course be a writing (W) course or letting it turn into one
• Think a traditional classroom course taught could be easily converted
to an iTV course
• Have class time consist of only lecture(s) (kiss of death for students and
you)
• Change topic(s) to be covered without at least two weeks prior notice
to students
• Assume all sites/campuses are created equal with following your class
sessions (all sites do progress differently)
Technology
• Form a partnership “team” with instructional design and IT department
• Make sure your university has broadband connectivity
• Own a notebook computer you take with you to each site (as well as
a flash drive) containing your presentations/handouts/ exercises
• Make sure computer lab is open and available to traditional as well
non-traditional students (not banking hours)
• Do think up backup class sessions and/or activities if technology does
not work properly
• Training – make sure you and TAs are trained via all aspects of technology to be used
• Think you can facilitate a class session by yourself without a T.A. at
your site to save money
• Have students rotate being T.A. for the day (this takes away from their
learning)
• Assume all students have a cutting edge computer at home
• Assume all students have used a computer
• Assume all sites/campuses are equal with respect to technology (what
it has, support and service)
Logistics
• Have a staff or fellow faculty member proctor exams (in addition to
T.A.)
• Allow eight full months to plan DE course – if you are given a course
release allow four full months
• If using an online course management tool, such as WebCT Vista,
request and start to populate four full months in advance
• Choose TA’s for each site who are trained in the subject matter and
the technology
• Set-up mock lecture sessions (more than one) with all those involved
at all sites.
• Visit each campus (prior to teaching) to experience classroom, computer center, bookstore
• Provide all handouts for class at least 24 hours prior to in case student
do not have a computer at home
• Have student sign-in sheet for each site
• Have a basic understanding for each site regarding composition and
knowledge.
• Have cell phone numbers for each T.A. and at least two students in
each class in case communication is interrupted or cut off
• Be available via phone and email with rules about the use of each
• PowerPoint presentations work best with a dark background, light text,
and font size of at least 24 point
• Speak at a moderate pace and volume
• Minimize distracting habits on camera
Logistics
• Assume all sites are created equal with regard to composition,
dynamics of group, and ability to get along as a group
• Have a free for all, letting any site talk at any time—go around to each
site periodically asking for questions and comments and have T.A. cut in
when immediacy is needed
• Think overall time is equivalent to a traditional “face-to-face” class—DE
is estimated to take two to three times longer
• Assume registrar indicates course is a DE or iTV course—check!
• Skip a site if class is cancelled. Students are short changed at that
site and are quick to tell you so!
• Wear white or patterned clothes for this affects student viewing at the
remote sites
Department Support
• Make sure they understand DL/iTV
• Make sure they support your teaching it in this format (takes more time
and needs more support)
• Sell (constantly) the positives of DL/iTV
• Accept and try to appreciate differing viewpoints of those who are
pedagogically against using iTV methods
*Taken from Donorfio & Healy (in press).
12
Don’ts
NEFDC EXCHANGE • FALL 2007
Department Support
• Assume your department knows what DL or iTV is
• Assume colleagues like DL or even see it as a viable option (conducive
to learning)
• Assume colleagues are happy for you embarking on this mission
(many times they worry that because of your precedent they will be
asked to teach in this manner)
Meet Our New Board Members:
Michelle Barthelemy
Coordinator, Distance Learning
Greenfield CC
1 College Drive,
Greenfield, MA 01301
Phone: 413-775-1481
BarthelemyM@gcc.mass.edu
Donna M. Qualters, Ph.D.
Director,Center for Teaching Excellence
Associate Professor, Education and Human Services
Suffolk University
8 Ashburton Place
Boston, MA 02108
Tel: 617-570-4804
e-mail: dqualters@suffolk.edu
Mei-Yau Shih
Associate Director
Center for Teaching
University of Massachusetts Amherst
301 Goodell Building
140 Hicks Way
Amherst, MA 01003-9272
Phone: 413-545-5172
mshih@acad.umass.edu
Michelle Barthelemy was hired in May of 2005 as Coordinator of Distance
Learning/Instructional Technology under a Collaborative Title III Grant with
Berkshire Community College. The goal of the grant is to establish an
online associates degree in Liberal Arts with an education concentration. Under
the grant, she is responsible for coordinating the development of online courses
and assist faculty in developing and delivering online courses. As a result, she
organize trainings and workshops for faculty that focus on the technical
and pedagogical use of technology in face-to-face, web-enhanced and fully
online courses. In addition, she develops how-to training materials for faculty
and students.
Over the past couple of years, the support she offers has extended to meet
the needs of the students at GCC. Some students who are new to taking an
online class may need additional support ranging from setting up their browser
to be compatible with the learning management system GCC uses
managing their time when taking an online class. With the assistance of faculty
and the staff in the Center for Teaching and Learning, she is working towards
developing training sessions and tutorials to help students succeed in online
classes.
Dr. Donna Qualters is the founding director of the Center for Teaching
Excellence at Suffolk University and Associate Professor of Education and
Human Services teaching future public school teachers. She has been involved
in faculty development for over 15 years at a variety of schools including
Northeastern University, MIT, UMass Medical School and Endicott College.
Her research is in the area of creating faculty community, change in both individuals and institutions, and of course teaching/learning. Her passion is engaging faculty in communities of practice so as to share ideas, grow as professionals, and understand both the art and science of teaching to create vibrant learning environments for students.
Dr. Mei-Yau Shih is Associate Director of the Center for Teaching (CFT),
University of Massachusetts Amherst. She is responsible for identifying, developing, and overseeing campus-wide teaching technology services through the
Center for Teaching. She has consulted with hundreds of faculty members on
integrating instructional technologies into their teaching; she has also conducted a variety of assessments for both online and regular classroom teaching.
She sits on campus and university system advisory and governance councils
that set practices and policies for effective use of instructional technology.
Currently, in addition to CFT’s duties, Dr. Shih is also an Adjunct Associate
Professor of Educational Technology in the Department of Teacher Education
and Curriculum Studies of the University of Massachusetts, where she teaches
a graduate course every year, serves on doctoral dissertation committees, and
oversees various independent studies.
NEFDC EXCHANGE • FALL 2007
13
Connecting With Others
There are two dominant national organizations—POD and NCSPOD--of people who do faculty development work. Both have
excellent fall conferences, with many sessions appropriate for faculty members interested in professional development.
The Professional and Organizational Development (POD) Network in Higher Education is primarily four-year college and university professionals. Link up with POD at www.podnetwork.org. POD also has a very active and informative listserv.
William Penn Hotel
Pittsburgh, PA
October 25-28, 2007
You are enthusiastically invited to be part of the 2007 POD Conference. This 32nd annual meeting will offer many opportunities
for professional development and renewal. The theme, "Purpose, Periphery, and Priorities," underscores POD's commitment to
accessible research, professional growth, and improved teaching and learning.
The National Council for Staff, Program and Organizational Development is an affiliate council of the American Association of
Community Colleges, and is primarily two-year college professionals. Link up with NCSPOD at www.ncspod.org.
There are also many regional associations like The Collaboration for the Advancement of College Teaching and Learning. The
Collaboration (http://www.collab.org/) presents two major conferences each year, each of which brings together faculty, student
affairs personnel, administrators, and staff to discuss issues of teaching and learning. These events, held in November and February
in Bloomington, Minnesota, feature keynote speakers of national and international renown as well as presenters from Collaboration
institutions.
UPCOMING CONFERENCES
November 16-17, 2007, Collaboration conference
"PROMOTING DEEP LEARNING: CULTIVATING INTELLECTUAL CURIOSITY,
CREATIVITY, AND ENGAGEMENT IN COLLEGE"
February 15-16, 2008, Collaboration conference
"CRITICAL THINKING IN THE AGE OF THE INTERNET"
WWW.NEFDC.ORG
Have you visited the NEFDC web site lately? It is maintained by Board member Rob Schadt from Boston
University. Information on the annual fall conference and the Spring Roundup for Faculty Development
Professionals, contact information for the board, membership forms, and related data are all available online.
Take advantage of this valuable resource and bookmark us at www.nefdc.org
14
NEFDC EXCHANGE • FALL 2007
NEFDC Fall Conference
DCU Center, Worcester MA
November 9, 2007
Attendance will be limited, so advanced registration is recommended. No refunds will be
given, but substitute registrations will be accepted.
Early Registration (postmarked by October 13th)
Members: $60.00 Non-members: $95.00
Students: $25.00
General Registration (postmarked after October 13th)
Members: $80.00 Non-members: $115.00
Students: $25.00
Membership:
Individual: $35.00
Institutional: $150.00
NOTE: Check your Institutional Membership at http://www.nefdc.org/members.htm
Please submit one registration form for each participant.
Name:_________________________________________________________
Institution: ______________________________________________________
Address: _______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
Work Phone: ____________________________________________________
E-mail Address: __________________________________________________
Make checks payable to NEFDC (Fed ID#: 04-3422583)
Mail completed registrations with payment to:
Tom Thibodeau
New England Institute of Technology 2500 Post Road
Warwick, RI 02886
NEFDC EXCHANGE • FALL 2007
15
NEFDC EXCHANGE
Tom Thibodeau, Assistant Provost
New England Institute of Technology
2500 Post Road
Warwick, RI 02886
NON PROFIT ORG
U.S. POSTAGE
PAID
PROVIDENCE, RI
PERMIT NO. 267
Fall Conference Nov. 4, 2005 – Beyond Tolerance:
Diversity and the Challenge of Pedagogy in American Higher Education
Board of Directors
The fifteen members of the Board of the NEFDC
serve staggered three-year terms. Board Members
are available for and welcome opportunities to
meet and consult with members of the NEFDC
and others who are interested in faculty
development. We welcome nominations and self
nominations for seats on the Board.
Members Whose Terms Expire in June 2008
Jeanne Albert, Professor of Mathematics
Castleton State College
Seminary Street, Castleton, VT 05735
(802) 468-1308 email:jeanne.albert@castleton.edu
Elise C. Martin , Director,
Instructional Design and Curriculum Projects
Office of Instructional and Professional Development
Middlesex Community College
Lowell, MA 01852
(978) 656-3288
martine@middlesex.mass.edu
Judith E. Miller, NEFDC Board President
Associate Dean for Special Academic Initiatives
Corner House, 3rd floor
Clark University
950 Main St., Worcester, MA 01610
508-793-7464, 508-421-3700 (fax)
judmiller@clarku.edu
Rob Schadt, Education Technology Manager
Boston University School of Public Health
715 Albany Street, Boston, MA
(617) 638-5039, (617) 638-5299 (fax)
rschadt@bu.edu
Susan C. Wyckoff, Vice President
Colleges of Worcester Consortium
484 Main St., Suite 500, Worcester MA 01608
(508) 754-6829 x3029
swyckoff@cowc.org
Members Whose Terms Expire in June 2009
Charles Kaminskim, NEFDC Treasurer
Assistant Dean of Academic Affairs
Business, Science & Technology Division
Berkshire Community College
1350 West Street, Pittsfield, MA 01201
(413) 499-4660, ext. 272, (413) 447-7840 (fax)
ckaminsk@berkshirecc.edu
Michelle Barthelemy, Coordinator, Distance Learning
Greenfield CC
1 College Drive,
Greenfield, MA 01301
Phone: 413-775-1481
BarthelemyM@gcc.mass.edu
Elizabeth Coughlan, Associate Professor of
Political Science, Salem State College
352 Lafayette St., Salem, MA 01970
(978) 542-7296
ecoughlan@salemstate.edu
Thomas S. Edwards, Past President of NEFDC
Vice President for Academic Affairs
Thomas College
180 West River Road
Waterville, ME 04901
(207) 859-1350, (207) 859-1114 (fax)
edwardst@thomas.edu
Thomas H. Luxon, Cheheyl Professor and Director
Dartmouth Center for the Advancement of Learning
Professor of English, Dartmouth College
6247 Baker-Berry, Hanover, NH 03755
(603) 646-2655
www.dartmouth.edu/~dcal
thomas.h.luxon@dartmouth.edu
Donna M. Qualters, Ph.D., Director,Center for
Teaching Excellence
Associate Professor, Education and Human Services
Suffolk University
8 Ashburton Place
Boston, MA 02108
Tel: (617) 570-4804
e-mail: dqualters@suffolk.edu
Members Whose Terms Expire in June 2010
Keith Barker, Associate Vice Provost for
Undergraduate Education and Director of the
Institute for Teaching and Learning
University of Connecticut
368 Fairfield Way, Unit 2142
Storrs, CT 06269-2142
(860) 486-2686, (860) 486-5724 (fax)
kb@uconn.edu
Jeff Halprin, Past President of NEFDC
Associate Dean
Nichols College
PO Box 5000
Dudley, MA 01571-5000
(508) 943-1560, (508) 213-2225 (fax)
jeffrey.halprin@nichols.edu
Mei-Yau Shih, Associate Director
Center for Teaching
University of Massachusetts Amherst
301 Goodell Building
140 Hicks Way
Amherst, MA 01003-9272
Phone: 413-545-5172
mshih@acad.umass.edu
Tom Thibodeau, Assistant Provost
New England Institute of Technology
2500 Post Road
Warwick, RI, 02886
(401) 739-5000
tthibodeau@neit.edu